\section{The Model/Framework}
\label{sec:modelframework}

In this section we will see to which extend we can make the normative model demanded by our research question and we will describe the background of its nature. We will initiate our description with the explaining the foundations of the model in section \ref{subsec:fundamentals}. We will show a model that summarizes our findings and pur them into perspective (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}. This model forms the basis of the development of a normative maturity model. In section \ref{subsec:developmentprocessnormativeframework} we will describe the necessity and the development process of the maturity model. In section \ref{subsec:explanationopengovernancematuritymatrix} we will present and describe the core model (we call it the Open Governance Maturity Matrix). 

Finally, in the sections \ref{subsec:subjectsformaturingmindset}, \ref{subsec:explanationAMM}, and \ref{subsec:maturitystagesexplained} we will thoroughly describe the different components and dependencies that constitute the Open Governance Maturity Matrix.

\subsection{Fundamentals of the Model/Framework}
\label{subsec:fundamentals}

\begin{figure}[H]
  \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./Pictures/findingsmodel}
    \caption{\textit{Summary of our findings}}
    \label{fig:findingsmodel}
\end{figure}


\noindent On the basis of our knowledge gained from chapter \ref{chap:literaturereview} and chapter \ref{chap:theory} we followed a certain path of a meaning condensation by performing constant comparison and reflection and identified some core topics. These core topics reflects the major concerns of our respondents (interviewees). \bigskip

\noindent The topics have been condensed from relevant concepts (section \ref{sec:findings}), relating to our research area (section \ref{sec:researchquestion}). All the primary and secondary data gathered depict concerns related to these topics. The first topic condensed, which actually is mentioned and emphasized by all the interviewees, is the uncertainty of not well-defined projects. The identification of concrete projects is pointed to be crucial for the development of an open data initiative/system. This we argued to be bottom-up system optimisation. The second topic condensed is the identification of relevant actors. Identifying potentially relevant actors is also crucial for the success of a project. The third category is concerned with breaking down business silos. Breaking down the silos within and between actors is crucial for the development of a collaborative system. The fourth topic condensed is the institutional design. Proper institutional design is as a means to minimize the \textit{cooperation problem and the problem of collective action} (\cite{JOOP}) between the relevant actors while developing a system (project). The fifth topic condensed is collective open data mindset maturity. Developing a collective mindset maturity among the actors enables holistic thinking within the open data system and makes the actors understand the value of cross-sectoral opening of data. \bigskip

\noindent These five topics forms our basis for further discussion. On the basis of these five topics identified, we developed a model summarizing our current findings (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}). It shows the relationships between these five topics. The model outlines different subsystems along with a concrete open data project/subsystem. These systems consists of different actors (private, public, academia, citizens). The findings model depicts that some actors being in one system can actually influence other systems. This means that there are some actors who are related to more than one system and there might be some actors that are not a part of any systems. So, it is important to identify those relevant actors of the system/project. Identifying potentially relevant actors can help to better understand their needs and their interests towards the system or project. From the findings (section \ref{sec:findings}), we realized that to shape a collaborative system, it is necessary to breakdown the silos between relevant actors and this can be done by implementing proper institutional design. The model depicts the relationship between institutional design and silo breakdown. The silos can be broken down by implementing proper institutional design.  Proper coordination between breaking down the silos and institutional design leads to collective mindset maturity. The figure (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}) also depicts that with the increased collective mindset maturity, systems can integrate with different other projects/subsystems and may form a bigger integrated system. This also illustrates a bottom-up approach where the smaller subsystems optimise and integrate to form a optimised big system (depicted by dotted triangle in the figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}). \bigskip

\noindent The \textit{``basic social process''} (\cite{JONES}) identified in our research is the process of increasing the maturity of the collective open data mindset. We have found that breaking down the silos by implementing proper institutional design enables this collective maturity among the actors. \bigskip

\noindent With this evaluation and summary of the findings we have increased our knowledge about the subject matter. So, at this stance, we have moved a step further in hermeneutic circle (\cite{HERMENEUTICS}) and got to a new standpoint. Furthermore, this model (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}) describes what is needed to develop a collective mindset but it does not explain concretely about how to create the collective mindset and how to increase the maturity of the mindsets i.e. it does not describes the action plan and is not normative. Instead this findings model (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}) forms a very good foundation for the development of an action model. It forms a basis for the development of an action model that can be used as a normative reference for collectively maturing the mindset of actors. This will fundtion as a normative model that can enhance the collaboration among the actors for cross-sectoral open data development by maturing their mindset collectively. The development process of the normative model is described in section \ref{subsec:developmentprocessnormativeframework}. 
\newpage

\subsection{Normative model/framework for open data mindset maturity }
\label{subsec:developmentprocessnormativeframework}
 
In this section we will describe how we can create a normative model for increasing open data mindset maturity and we will go through the development process.\bigskip

\noindent Based on our primary data we argued that there is a necessity of developing such a model and that such a model can fill a gap in the current smart city discourse. Søren Kvist emphasizes the necessity of a maturity model by saying,

\begin{quote}

\textit{``A maturity model is definitely something that could fit into the governance way of creating a roadmap for a smart city.''} (Appendix \ref{appsec:kvist}: 01:04:40)

\end{quote}

\noindent Although a convincing amount of research is being done in regards to open data, the field of maturity model design is underexposed in both academic as well as non academic world. There are some research institutions like Gartner (subsection  \ref{subsec:gartnermaturitymodel}) and researchers like Tauberer (subsection \ref{subsec:tauberermaturitymodel}) that have developed maturity models related to open data but these models are either only available for specific clients or are limited to specific areas and does not incorporate all perspectives of open data maturity (table \ref{tab:maturityperspectives}). This leads to the necessity for the development of a normative model, which actually can give some guidelines for actions (increasing collective open data mindset maturity). Thus, based on our meaning condensation and findings model (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}), we will create a theoretical normative framework for sustainable open data collaboration -- a sustainability which is reached by increasing the collective maturity of the system actors. \bigskip

\noindent In section \ref{sec:maturity} we reviewed the concept of maturity from different perspectives by exploring different maturity models. We also realized that there are different varieties of maturity models, some models describes the current state of the subject matter, while other models advance to another level by actually providing suggestions on how to increase the maturity. The \textit{``Architecture Maturity Matrix''} (subsection \ref{subsec:maturitymatrix}) is the only one which constitutes action model for assessing the maturity stage as well as providing a concrete guidance for incrementally maturing an organisation from an EA perspective. \bigskip

\noindent The format of our model is inspired by the \textit{``Architecture Maturity Matrix''} (figure \ref{fig:sogeti}). Following the same design pattern as the Architecture Maturity Matrix, our model forms an instrumental framework that provide guidelines for maturing the mindset of involved actors and by that fosters the development of an open data system that can be integrated with other systems. Moreover, with an action framework like this, an open data initiative can live up to the conditions that we have identified for cross sectoral open data development.  Furthermore, this model will incorporate open governance approaches (as described in section \ref{subsec:bigdataopendataopengovernment}) so that all the relevant actors can have open access to the model and all the actions can take place in a transparent environment. By keeping such a framework open to all the relevant actors they have the possibility and incentives to accelerate the maturing process and it ensures that all the actors have the same understanding of what maturity is, which is also very important. Furthermore, the actors have an incentive to collaborate and help to collectively increase the maturity of their mindsets. It is an incorporated premise of the model that such alignments of mindsets should happen in collaboration -- therefore, we call the model an \textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix}. In this way this model can provide incentives to collaborate, which allows the long-term goals to be envisioned and rebound effects to be minimised. \bigskip

\subsection{Explaination of the Open Governance Maturity Matrix (Table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix})}
\label{subsec:explanationopengovernancematuritymatrix}

As described in section \ref{subsec:fundamentals}, the findings model illustrated in figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel} forms a foundation for development of \textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix}. The model is showed in table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix} on page \pageref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix} and it consists of three dimensions. The first dimension includes \textit{three} subjects (elaborated on in subsection \ref{subsec:keycomponentsmodel}). As explained in section \ref{subsec:fundamentals}, these subjects are condensed from the primary data gathered and these are the most main areas that should be considered while developing an open data system/project. The second dimension consist of \textit{eight} maturity stages (detailed description in subsection \ref{subsec:maturitystagesexplained}) that includes the overall maturity levels. Finally, the third dimension consists of \textit{four levels} for mindset maturity of all relevant actors (Actors dependency (D1)). It is essential to incorporate the mindset maturity of all relevant actors in a complex system like an open data system to understand their relevance, competencies, and behaviour.

\begin{landscape}
\hfuzz=\maxdimen
\newdimen\hfuzz
\begin{table}[H]

\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}||p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2.1cm}|p{2.1cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|} \hline
\diaghead{\theadfont Diag Columnmn I}
{\scriptsize Subjects}{\scriptsize Maturity\\stage} & \textbf{Stage 1} & \textbf{Stage 2}  & \textbf{Stage 3}  & \textbf{Stage 4}  & \textbf{Stage 5}  & \textbf{Stage 6}  & \textbf{Stage 7}  & \textbf{Stage 8}  \\ \hline \hline
\footnotesize \textit{\textbf{Concrete/well-defined project (S1)}} & \tiny The project has a clear vision. & \tiny Resources required for the project are clearly identified. &   &   &   & \tiny The project has defined concrete short term wins along with a long term outcome. &  & \tiny The project is scalable and it can be integrated with other projects. \\ \hline
\footnotesize \textit{\textbf{Relevant actors (S2)}} &   & \tiny The potentially relevant actors for the project has been identified. & \tiny The actors are able to define their specific roles. &  & \tiny Based on their specific roles, the actors are able to optimize their work processes. &   &  \tiny The actors have the ability and willingness to create incentives for other actors to progress in the participation.  &   \\ \hline
\footnotesize \textit{\textbf{Proper institutional design (S3)}} &   &   &  & \tiny Requirements for various actors have been identified. & \tiny Objectives and constraints have been formulated from the identified requirements. & \tiny Proper policies and norms are developed based on the objectives and constraints formulated. & \tiny Policies and norms can be changed according to the need. &   \\ \hline \hline
\footnotesize \textit{\textbf{Actors dependency (D1)}} &  &  & \tiny - I understand the project and its value proposition? \smallskip

\noindent - I understand what open data is in this particular project? & \tiny - The provided incentives are satisfying for me? \smallskip

\noindent - The value proposition and the incentives counterbalance the risks of changing environments?&  & \tiny I am willing to and capable of sharing my data in a standardized way and I understand the benefits? &  \tiny I understand how to benefit from integrating this project with other projects? &  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix}}
\label{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}
\end{table}


\end{landscape}



\subsubsection{The key components of the model/framework}
\label{subsec:keycomponentsmodel}

Unlike the Architecture Maturity Matrix (figure \ref{fig:sogeti}), which basically uses three key components to analyse the maturity state, the Open Governance Maturity Matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}) uses four key components to analyse the maturity state because of the complex nature of open data systems. \bigskip

\noindent The four key components, also depicted in table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}, are:

\begin{description}

\item[Subjects] \hfill \\ This includes the list of focus areas/subjects. Based on our findings (section \ref{sec:findings}) and the model summarizing our findings (figure \ref{fig:findingsmodel}) three subject areas (Subjects) are identified:

\begin{enumerate}

\item[S1:] Concrete/well-defined project
\item[S2:] Identification of relevant actors
\item[S3:] Proper institutional design

\end{enumerate}

Descriptions of these subject areas are presented in section \ref{subsec:subjectsformaturingmindset}.

\item[Subject's Maturity Levels] \hfill \\ Each subject consist of maturity levels starting from lowest maturity levels to highest maturity levels. In total, the maturity matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}) consists of 12 different maturity conditions, each depicting certain levels of maturity for each subject. These conditions and their relevance are described in section \ref{subsec:subjectsformaturingmindset}. For every subject the maturity conditions should be achieved from left to right. It is not possible to achieve higher level maturity conditions without achieving the preceding maturity conditions. The stage at which the certain maturity conditions should be met are presented in the maturity matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}). The position of the conditions also depicts the subjects that should be developed or considered first before developing other subjects. For example, the subject \textit{`concrete/well-defined project (S1)'} has a condition - \textit{`The project has a clear vision'} at Stage 1, whereas, the subject, \textit{`identification of relevant actors (S2)'} has a condition - \textit{`Resources required for the project are clearly identified'} at Stage 2. This means the condition for S1 should be met before the condition for S2.

\item[Maturity Stages] \hfill \\ It forms the horizontal component which shows the overall maturity of the collaborative mindset maturity among the actors. The eight columns represents the maturity stages progressing from value 1 to 8. Following conditions should be met to reach the certain stage of maturity.

\begin{enumerate}

\item All the required maturity levels in a particular maturity stage should have been reached.
\item All the required maturity levels in maturity stages preceding the current maturity stage should have been reached.
\item Not all maturity levels for the later maturity stages have been reached.
 
\end{enumerate}

Thus, to be in the maturity stage 2, the conditions - \textit{`The project has a clear vision'} and \textit{`Resources required for the project are clearly identified'}, should have been achieved for Subject 1, and the condition - \textit{`The potentially relevant actors for the project has been identified'}, should have been achieved for Subject 2. So, when all the conditions in stage 2 have been achieved, then it is time to develop the required subjects for next stage. In this way this model can also be used to set priorities for maturing the collaborative mindset.

\item[Actors dependency (D1)] \hfill \\ This component also consists of maturity levels interdependent with maturity levels of the subjects (S1, S2, S3) but these levels are obtained on the basis of questionnaires (a detailed explanation is presented in section \ref{subsec:explanationAMM}) for relevant actors, presented in table \ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors}. Due to its interdependency with the maturity levels of Subjects S1, S2, and S3, the first condition for this dimension should be met in stage 3 of maturity matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}).

% In Table \ref{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors}, the questions are assigned in to different levels. The relevant actors should be able to answer \textit{Yes}  to promote to next level and so on. Level A and Level B consists of two questions (Q1 + Q2 and Q3 + Q4) that means it is necessary for the actors to answer \textit{Yes} for both questions to be mature enough to reach Label A and Label B, respectively. 

\end{description}


%\begin{table}[H]
%\centering

%\begin{tabular}{|c|p{8cm}|} \hline
%\textbf{S1} & Concrete/well-defined project \\ \hline
%\textbf{S2} & Relevant actors \\ \hline
%\textbf{S3} & Proper institutional design \\ \hline

%\end{tabular}
%\caption{\textit{Open Governance Subjects}}
%\label{tab:OGsubjects}
%\end{table}



%\subsection{Explanation of Collaborative Mindset Maturity Model / Framework}
%\label{subsec:explanationmaturitymindsetmodel}

%In this section we will explain our maturity model (\ref{tab:OGmaturitymatrix}) and other necessary factors. All together, Collaborative Mindset Maturity Model/Framework consist of following five table:

%\begin{enumerate}

%\item Open Governance Maturity Matrix (\ref{tab:OGmaturitymatrix})
%\item Open Governance Questions (\ref{tab:OGsubjects})
%\item Open Governance Maturity Questions (\ref{tab:OGmaturityquestions}
%\item Project Questions For Relevant Actors (\ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors})
%\item Open Data Working Questionnaire for Actors (D1) (\ref{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors}) 
 
%\end{enumerate}

\begin{landscape}


\begin{table}[H]

\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{3cm}||p{3cm}|p{3.5cm}|p{4cm}|p{4.5cm}|} \hline
\diaghead{\theadfont Diag ColumnmnHead II}
{Open Gov-\\ernance conditions}{Multi-level\\answers} & \textbf{Level A} & \textbf{Level B}  & \textbf{Level C}  & \textbf{Level D} \\ \hline \hline
\textit{\textbf{Concrete/well-defined project (S1)}} & \footnotesize The project has a clear vision. & \footnotesize Resources required for the project are clearly identified. & \footnotesize The project has defined concrete short term wins along with a long term outcome. & \footnotesize The project is scalable and it can be integrated with other projects. \\ \hline
\textit{\textbf{Relevant actors (S2)}} & \footnotesize The potentially relevant actors for the project has been identified. & \footnotesize The actors are able to define their specific roles. & \footnotesize Based on their specific roles, the actors are able to optimize their work processes.  & \footnotesize The actors have the ability and willingness to create incentives for other actors to progress in the participation. \\ \hline
\textit{\textbf{Proper institutional design (S3)}} & \footnotesize Requirements for various actors have been identified. & \footnotesize Objectives and constrains have been formulated from the identified requirements. & \footnotesize Proper policies and norms are developed based on the objectives and constraints formulated. & \footnotesize Policies and norms can be changed according to the need. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Open Governance Maturity Conditions }}
\label{tab:OGmaturityquestions}
\end{table}

\end{landscape}


\subsection{The three subjects of consideration for maturing the open data mindset collaboratively}
\label{subsec:subjectsformaturingmindset}

On the basis of our primary and secondary data we identified three subjects that should be considered for maturing the collective mindset of the actors (subsection \ref{subsec:keycomponentsmodel}). Within these three areas we have defined different maturity levels (table \ref{tab:OGmaturityquestions}). Every maturity level for each subject is assigned with certain conditions. Furthermore, for making it easier to explain and convenient for the reader to understand, these conditions are assigned with different characters from A to D. For example, the first three conditions of each subject is assigned with character A and called `level A' (as depicted in table \ref{tab:OGmaturityquestions}). These maturity levels are arranged in a manner so that the higher maturity levels cannot be achieved without achieving the preceding maturity levels. For example, it is not possible to promote to `level D' without fulfilling the conditions for levels A, B and C, respectively. In this section we will elaborate on each subject along with their four maturity levels and the required conditions.

\begin{enumerate}

\item \textbf{Concrete/well-defined project} \hfill \\ As per our findings, the projects related to open data are mostly fuzzy with unclear goals and approaches. This is due to the complexity of the open data subsystem. So, in the beginning it becomes important to understand how well the project is defined.

\begin{description}

\item[Level A] \textit{The project has a clear vision} \hfill \\ The project should have a clear vision of the ultimate condition or desired state that it wants to achieve. A clear vision also provides the successive steps for moving the project forward. 

\item[Level B] \textit{Resources required for the project are clearly identified} \hfill \\ The resources (such as funding) for the project should be allocated. For example, from our findings we can argue that the initiation of the project should be done by the public sectors (top-down) by allocating the resources, at least for initiation of the project (subsection \ref{subsec:topdownvsbottomup}).

\item[Level C] \textit{The project has defined concrete short term wins along with a long term outcome} \hfill \\ The project should be able to provide small short term gains that can act as an incentive for the actors to participate more actively from the beginning and keep motivated towards the final outcome of the project. In case of a project with a clear short term goal, value propositions can be made clearly visible.

\item[Level D] \textit{The project is scalable and can be integrated with other proje\-cts} \hfill \\ The whole idea behind maturing the mindset of actors collaboratively is to realize the optimal value from cross-sectoral opening and sharing of data. To incorporate this, the project should be scalable so that it can be integrated with other projects and an ecosystem can be built with understandable value propositions that every actor can benefit from.

\end{description} 

\item \textbf{Relevant actors} \hfill \\ The projects dealing with open data typically have trouble with the identification of relevant actors. It is particularly necessary to identify relevant actors that actually influence the development of project in different levels. It might not be necessary to include all the actors at all the levels of project development. The Open Governance Maturity Matrix is supposed to be controlled by governance bodies, knowledge institutions, or consortia that govern the development of open data systems. It is their responsibility to identify the relevant actors for the project/subsystem. For example the Danish consortium CLEAN can be seen as innovation missionaries whose job is to identify the relevant actors and assemble them for development of cross-sectoral open data systems.

\begin{description}

\item[Level A] \textit{The potentially relevant actors for the project has been identified} \hfill \\ The first thing is, to find out who are the relevant actors for the project. It is also necessary to identify what are their roles and how can they support the project. Identification of relevant actors makes it easier to communicate with them.

\item[Level B] \textit{The actors are able to define their specific roles} \hfill \\ After identifying the relevant actors it is necessary for the actors to be able to understand their specific roles in a particular project. For example, if a public institution is providing some kind of data, then it should understand its role of providing the data in a standardized way.

\item[Level C] \textit{Based on their specific roles, the actors are able to optimize their work processes} \hfill \\ In this level the actors must be able to optimize their way of working so that it motivates other participants in the project. For example, if a public institution is providing some kind of data for private sector, then it should be able to advance itself with new technologies that can transfer data more efficiently in standardized formats.

\item[Level D] \textit{The actors have the ability and willingness to create incentives for other actors to progress in the participation} \hfill \\ In this level the actors should be matured enough to understand the optimal value of the project. They should be able to create incentives for other actors to participate and mature so the collective maturity can increase. For example, by providing funding for an open data infrastructure and by providing open government data in highly standardized way, public actors can attract private actors for collaboration and vice versa.

\end{description}

\item \textbf{Proper institutional design} \hfill \\ From our findings (section \ref{sec:findings}), it can be seen that improper institutional design is one of the major problems in maturing the collective open data mindset among relevant smart city actors. Proper institutional design can break down intra-organisati\-onal as well as inter-organisational silos by establishing coordination and cooperation among the actors. We will take the \textit{Meta model for Institutional Desgin} (figure \ref{fig:metamodelinstitutionaldesign}) as a basis for developing the required conditions in this Subject area. 

\begin{description}

\item[Level A] \textit{Requirements for various actors have been identified} \hfill \\ Every participant in a project is motivated by its own interest. It is important to identify their interest for participation and create a list of requirements, which is a first step while designing institutions (figure \ref{fig:metamodelinstitutionaldesign}).

\item[Level B] \textit{Objectives and constraints have been formulated from the id\-entified requirements} \hfill \\ When having the list of requirements, it can be identified what supports the objectives of the project and what acts as a constraint for the project, which is a second step in designing institutions. As described by \cite{JOOP}, these objectives and constraints can also be tested by involving experts and stakeholders before developing the policies and norms. 

\item[Level C] \textit{Proper policies and norms has been developed based on the objectives and constraints formulated} \hfill \\ Based on the identified objectives and constraints, proper policies and norms that support the overall goal of the project are developed. Furthermore, if needed, agreements are made between different collaborators for respecting the values of others. While developing such policies and norms one should be also aware that the focus on the solution to a certain problem must not create another.

\item[Level D] \textit{Policies and norms can be changed according to the need} \hfill \\ In this level the institution (policies and norms) should be robust. The policies, norms, and agreements should be changeable with the change in structure of the project as well as the change in environment. This level can almost be considered as utopia but still something to strive for.

\end{description}
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Explanation of actors dependency (D1)}
\label{subsec:explanationAMM}

Actors mindset maturity (actors dependency) forms key component in our model and can be viewed as a third dimension in the \textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix} (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}) and is denoted as D1. Before getting into more detailed explanation of this dimension, it is crucial to explain the \textit{Project Questions For Relevant Actors} (table \ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors}) and the \textit{Open Data Working Questionnaire for Actors} (table \ref{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors}), which forms the basis for this dimension. 

\subsubsection{Project questions for relevant actors (table \ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors})}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering

\begin{tabular}{|c|p{8cm}|} \hline
\textbf{Q1} & I understand the project and its value proposition. \\ \hline
\textbf{Q2} & I understand what open data is in this particular project. \\ \hline
\textbf{Q3} & The provided incentives are satisfying for me? \\ \hline
\textbf{Q4} & The value proposition and the incentives counterbalance the risks of changing environments? \\ \hline
\textbf{Q5} & I am willing to and capable of sharing my data in a standardized way and I understand the benefits? \\ \hline
\textbf{Q6} & I understand how to benefit from integrating this project with other projects? \\ \hline

\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Project Questions For Relevant Actors}}
\label{tab:questionsforrelevantactors}
\end{table}

The \textit{Project Questions for Relevant Actors} consists of six question that evaluate the mindset maturity of identified actors. It depicts the mindset maturity of specific actors. All the questions are made easy to understand and can be answered by saying \textit{Yes} or \textit{No}. Now, we will explain the relevance of these questions based on our findings (section \ref{sec:findings}). All these questions are build on a combination of the statements of the interviewees regarding open data projects and our secondary data.

\begin{description}

\item \textbf{I understand the project and its value proposition? (Q1)} \hfill \\ It is critical for the relevant actors to understand the project and its probable outcome. Without this level of mindset maturity, an actor is not able to understand what value is being provided.

%Supporting Quote

%When we talk about smart cities out point of view, if you want to boil it down, is that it’s not technology first. I mean if you have to look at smart cities or intelligent cities, it’s not about how you label it. It's about basically what user value you can provide to people living in the cities or to companies operating in the cities or organizations functioning in the cities. Smart city is about making life easier for companies, making life easier for people, making life easier for organizations. If you can’t do that it’s not smart and it’s not desirable. And so, it’s not really about the data, it’s not really about the technology. It’s about the ability or the imagination that you an use around it to, for example, make it easier for people to move around in the city, make it easier for a company to operate on a day-to-day basis." (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 9:20)

\item \textbf{I understand what open data is in this particular project? (Q2)} \hfill \\ It is important to understand what open data is in context of the particular project. The actors should be able to understand what data they have: Is the data useful for this particular project? Do they have enough data needed? Do I understand the data of other actors? Do I understand basic open data technologies?

%Supportng Quotes

%"After talking to various public sector players, you know what? It's not because they don't get it and it's not because they don't want it, it's because when they sit there and look at their existing data, it's just not there." (Hvidsteen, A.1, 34:26)

%"Opening up data is one part of it but that just becomes a cloud of data. We need to be able to understand and contextualize it for it to have value." (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 16.10)

%"Technology is enabling a smoothing of the consumption" (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 12.00)

%"You can put solutions to solve specific problems and challenges" (Adrian, Appendix A.2, 28:15)

\item \textbf{The provided incentives are satisfying for me? (Q3)} \hfill \\ The actors should be able to identify the incentives that drives them towards the project. They should also be able to realize how satisfying the incentives are for them. By identifying and formulating their own incentives, making them open, and by trying to fulfil them (may be by negotiating with other actors) an actor can motivate oneself to participate actively in the project. At the same time other actors can provide the necessary incentives.

%Supporting Quotes

%"To get the most stupid functionality, people are willing to give up all friends lists and all their contact information and everything. In general I think people are generally willing to share their data if they can get some value back." (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 54:80)

%"You need to consider what would might incentives be for me to open up the access to that data for another company." (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 08:18

\item \textbf{The value proposition and the incentives counterbalance the risks of changing environments? (Q4)} \hfill \\ With the change in environment (change of investors, change in number of relevant actors and other unfavourable and undesirable conditions), the actors should be agile and should be able to change the perspectives along the way. The actors are also able to outweigh the risks by considering the value proposition and the incentives. This keeps the actors motivated towards the development of the project. 


%Supporting Quotes

%"If I have given all my data to the public sector I expect them to be able to share that, so that if I meet whomever else in the public sector they shouldn't be asking for my address agin or other simple information." (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 26.53)

%"I think it's a question of risk aversion and the way the public sector is striving for zero mistakes. If you want to limit your risk for any damage as much as you possibly can then you go with an incremental change type of project, you try to specify a lot of the variables" (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 48:10)

%A project needs to be incremental rather than a revolutionary and it means that for incremental development to be successful you need to be agile, you need to change perspectives along the way. (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 16:41)



\item \textbf{I am willing to and capable of sharing my data in a standardized way and I understand the benefits? (Q5)} \hfill \\ The actors are ready to share their data and resources with other actors. It is not only enough to show eagerness of sharing but the actors are also able to share the data in standardized and mature format so that it can be easily used by others. Furthermore, the actors are able to understand their benefits of doing it throughout the project.

%Supporting Quotes

%"[The traditional companies] have an incredibly hard time managing their data. They have huge challenges. When they look in their systems, when they look in data flows, they simply are not able to open them up and be smart." (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 19.22)

%"You can say that as a resource, the telecom data you have today could be used in many other ways than what they are within the telecom industry. So, you can see that there is a potential there and if you manage to unfold that potential you will have an extra value created within society and this could go for both the resources that are publicly owned and the resources that are privately owned. But there is a huge but (07:05), it is much easier to describe or formulate how that value can be extracted on the society level. I mean you can also formulate how it can create value in the individual level but the thing is if this is going to happen, you would need some sort of ability or desire to pay at individual level." (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 06:08)

%"You should consider information as a payment or what could be the thing that makes that solution possible instead of financial payment." (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 08:18)

\item \textbf{I understand how to benefit from integrating this project with other projects? (Q6)} \hfill \\ The actors are capable of thinking in cross-silo manner and are able to see the new connections. Furthermore, the actors are capable of challenging their own competencies pro-actively by maturing their mindset. By that the actors are also able to see the benefits of integrating different projects and optimising them holistically to end up with real sustainable outcomes.


%Supporting Quotes

%"I think it's a question of risk aversion and the way the public sector is striving for zero mistakes. If you want to limit your risk for any damage as much as you possibly can then you go with an incremental change type of project, you try to specify a lot of the variables" (Hvidsteen, Appendix A.1, 48:10)

%"You can say that as a resource, the telecom data you have today could be used in many other ways than what they are within the telecom industry. So, you can see that there is a potential there and if you manage to unfold that potential you will have an extra value created within society and this could go for both the resources that are publicly owned and the resources that are privately owned. But there is a huge but (07:05), it is much easier to describe or formulate how that value can be extracted on the society level. I mean you can also formulate how it can create value in the individual level but the thing is if this is going to happen, you would need some sort of ability or desire to pay at individual level." (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 06:08)

%"Cross-silo thinking is a very important manner as for the ability to see new connections, how your professional sector might relate to the other competencies and also it's a matter of mindset because you need to proactively challenge your own competencies and the area your are working within and how that might relate to other areas." (Jensen, Appendix A.3, 11:48)

\end{description}

\subsubsection{Open Data Working Questionnaire for Actors - D1 (Table \ref{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors})}

The  six questions developed in table \ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors} are used as a questionnaire for the relevant actors. These questions are further divided in to four  levels (A to D), according to their relevance, so that it fits in to the Open Governance Maturity Matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}). We will briefly explain how these questions are set into different levels and their interdependence with maturity levels of the Open Governance Maturity Matrix. 

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} 
\cline{1-4}
Actor mindset maturity & Question & \textbf{Yes} & \textbf{No} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{ |c||  }{\multirow{2}{*}{Level A} } &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q1}} & & \\ \cline{2-4}
\multicolumn{1}{ |c||  }{}                        &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q2}} & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{ |c||  }{\multirow{2}{*}{Level B} } &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q3}} & & \\ \cline{2-4}
\multicolumn{1}{ |c||  }{}                        &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q4}} & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{\multirow{1}{*}{Level C} } &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q5}} & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{\multirow{1}{*}{Level D} } &
\multicolumn{1}{ c| }{\textbf{Q6}} & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Open Data Working Questionnaire for Actors (D1)}}
\label{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors}
\end{table}

\begin{description}

\item[Level A] \hfill \\ Question Q1 and Q2 are set in level A. An actor should be able to answer \textit{Yes} to both Q1 and Q2 for being mature enough to be in Level A. The reason Q1 and Q2 are set in the same level the that actors must be able to understand the project but as it is the project related to open data, the actors must be also able to understand it from an open data context. Only in this only the actors are able to properly understand the provided incentives and answer questions Q3 and Q4. Level A is set for D1 at stage 3 of maturity matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}) because it is obvious that the value of actors can be only tested once they are identified. 

\item[Level B] \hfill \\ Questions Q3 and Q4 are set in level B. An actor must be able to answer \textit{Yes} to both Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 for being mature enough to be in Level B. The reason Q3 and Q4 are set together is that both questions are dealing with understanding the value of the provided incentives. Without finding the incentives satisfying an actor will not be interested in analysing its benefit.

\item[Level C] \hfill \\ Question Q4 is set to level C. At this level the actor must be able to share its data in a standardized format and understand the benefit of doing it. This enhance the actor to look forward and aim for next level of maturity i.e. level D.

\item[Level D] \hfill \\ Question Q5 is set to Level D. In this level, the actor must be able to answer \textit{Yes} to Q5 and all previous questions and by that the actor must be able to understand the benefit of integrating with other projects and also should be able to optimize itself.

\end{description}
\newpage
\subsection{Detailed explanation of maturity stages}
\label{subsec:maturitystagesexplained}

\begin{table}[H]

\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}||p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|p{0.9cm}|} \hline
\diaghead{\theadfont Diag Columnhead}
{Subjects}{Maturity\\stage} & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 1} & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 2}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 3}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 4}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 5}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 6}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 7}  & \textbf{\footnotesize Stage 8}  \\ \hline \hline
\textbf{S1} & A & B &   &   &   & C  &  &  D \\ \hline
\textbf{S2} &   & A & B &  & C  &   &  D  &   \\ \hline
\textbf{S3} &   &   &  & A & B & C & D  &   \\ \hline
\textbf{D1} &  &  & A & B &  & C &  D  &  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix (conditions replaced by characters)}}
\label{tab:OGmaturitymatrix}
\end{table}

After describing all the required key components, factors and maturity levels we will go through all the maturity stages in the Open Governance Maturity Matrix (table \ref{tab:OGmaturitymatrix}). We will explain the reasoning behind the placement of different conditions in different maturity stages. The placement of the conditions in the various stages is based on our analysis of the gathered (primary and secondary) data. By doing this we are showing how such a model works and how such a model can act as a conceptual model that gives normative guidance to maturing the collective mindset of the actors. To make it easy to explain and understand we have assigned different characters (as depicted in table \ref{tab:OGmaturitymatrix}) for different maturity levels instead of the conditions (as depicted in table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}).

\begin{description}

\item[Stage 1] \hfill \\ We introduce our Maturity Stages with Stage 1. The first step in developing an open data project/subsystem is to identify and define a project and the project must have a clear vision and a goal. As we have to start at some point, we assume this to be Stage 1 of collaborative mindset maturity. This sets Maturity Level A for Subject 1 (S1) in Stage 1.

\item[Stage 2] \hfill \\ After identifying a project with a clear vision and a goal, the next step is to identify the resources required for the project. The resources also include the stakeholders so it becomes essential to identify the potentially relevant actors. This sets Level B for S1 and Level A for S2 in Stage 2.  

\item[Stage 3] \hfill \\ The maturity of the identified potentially relevant actors can be evaluated using tables \ref{tab:questionsforrelevantactors} and \ref{tab:workingquestionnaireforactors} in combination. The actors must be able to understand their specific roles in the project by understanding the project, its value proposition, and open data in this particular context. This sets Level B for S2 and Level A for D1. Furthermore, as the project contains multiple stakeholders there is a necessity for institutional design to get rid of \textit{`cooperation problems' } and \textit{`the problem of collective actions} (section \ref{subsec:institutionaltheory}). Following the design process for developing institutions (figure \ref{fig:metamodelinstitutionaldesign}) the next step is to identify the requirements of these stakeholders.

\item[Stage 4] \hfill \\ After identifying the potentially relevant actors, the requirements of these actors are identified. Furthermore, the actors must be able to evaluate if the incentives and value propositions outweigh the risks involved in changing. This sets Level A for S3 and Level B for D1. As the requirements from the relevant actors are identified, the objectives and constraints can be formulated from these requirements to move forward in institutional design process (figure \ref{fig:metamodelinstitutionaldesign}).

\item[Stage 5] \hfill \\ After obtaining the requirements, these requirements can be analysed to formulate the supportive objectives and constraints from different actors. The actors that matured to Level B of D1 can optimize their work processes. This sets Level C for S2 and Level B for S3. The formulated objectives and constraints can be tested by involving experts and stakeholders and proper policies and norms can be designed (figure \ref{fig:metamodelinstitutionaldesign}).

\item[Stage 6] \hfill \\ When the actors are able to specify their roles and optimize their working processes. The project should be able to define some short-term wins, which keep the actors motivated. At the same time proper policies should be developed that urge the actors to work collaboratively. At this point, the actors also should be able to realize their potential for sharing of data in standardized way. This sets Level C for S1, S3 and D1.

\item[Stage 7] \hfill \\ Now, being in maturity stage 6 the actors can actually create incentives for other actors to participate because they understand the long term benefits of collaborating with open data and integrate with other projects. The established policies can be changed according to the changing integration and collaboration. This sets Level D for S2, S3 and D1.

\item[Stage 8] \hfill \\ After being matured optimally in all other subjects and the mindsets of the individual actors are also matured optimally the project can be integrated with other projects. At this point the actors have a collectively matured mindset. This sets D for S1. Thus, increasing maturity level to Stage 8, which is the final stage for maturity.

\end{description}
 
\subsection{Possible working Model/Framework}

In this section, we will elaborate on how the Open Governance Maturity Matrix possibly can be applied. Figure \ref{fig:OGMMworkingmodel} demonstrates how the maturity matrix can be depicted in a three dimensional cube. This is a possible way to use and present the Open Government Maturity Matrix (table \ref{tab:finalmaturitymatrix}) for maturing the mindset of actors collectively. The figure clearly depicts the three dimensions i.e. Subjects, Maturity Stages, and Actors dependencies in three axes. In this particular case, the dimension \textit{actors dependencies} depicts three actors, which is only for demonstration and may vary depending on the project and its progress. \bigskip

\begin{figure}[H]
  \centering
    \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.4\textwidth]{./Pictures/cubemodel}}
    \caption{\textit{Open Governance Maturity Matrix (possible working model/framework)}}
    \label{fig:OGMMworkingmodel}
\end{figure}

\noindent Each grey rectangular cube contains a condition (Maturity Level of Subjects) and each green rectangular cube contains questions for measuring the individual actors mindset maturity. It can be seen how we assure that the individual mindset maturity and the overall project maturity are interdependent. Every horizontal layer depicts a maturity stage. 

To be in Stage 1 a clear vision must have been identified. After stage 1 is achieved one can strive for achieving the maturity stage 2, where two different conditions for subjects S1 and S2 has to be achieved. Similarly, to be at stage 3 the actors must be able to define their specific roles and be also able to say \textit{Yes} to questions in the same horizontal level i.e. \textit{`I understand the project and the value proposition and I understand what open data is in this particular project'}. 

By achieving the other conditions in higher stages and answering \textit{Yes} to the questions aligned horizontally in each stage, one can achieve the higher stages of maturity. In this way, this model can be used practically as an open governance reference model in an open data project for maturing the collective mindset of actors and the total maturity of an open data system.


